Word of the week: offend

Photo Credit: CanStockPhoto under creative commons licence

Where is the line between the right to free expression and the responsibility to respect others?

There’s a debate going on now about whether media outlets should republish the cartoons from Charlie Hebdo that enraged three men in France enough to kill 25 people at the magazine and at a kosher grocery store, and wound another 20.

In Canada, several newspapers, most of them French-language, republished the cartoons. Most English-language newspapers, however, did not. The New York Times’ editor changed his mind twice about the issue, ultimately deciding not to publish them.

The French language side of the Canadian Broadcasting Company, Radio-Canada, published them on its website. The English-language service made a point of not doing so. David Studer, CBC's director of journalistic standards and practices, said that there was no need to publish the cartoons to understand the story, and that since CBC would not have published them before the shootings, there was no reason to publish them after.

Last Friday, the lunchtime radio call-in program in my home town debated the issue. Most of the callers, Muslim or not, agreed with the sentiment that the cartoons should not be published because they are offensive, particularly those that depict the prophet Muhammed in sexual situations.

Think of the children!

One caller who identified herself as a Muslim said that “I am trying to raise my children to respect Muhammed, and how can they when they see images like that?”

Protecting children is important. In Canada, 344 people drowned in 2012. Open water can be dangerous for anyone.

How do we protect children against drowning? We teach them swimming and water safety. As a result of increased numbers of children enrolled in swimming lessons, the drowning statistics for children under age 18 has been declining steadily.

Automobile accidents claim thousands of lives every year. Yet we teach children to drive cars. We acknowledge that the danger is best met and mitigated by teaching people how to deal with real danger.

But we have such a different attitude when it comes to offence, insult or criticism of figures that some people revere.

Why? What could happen to the Prophet were someone to criticize him? I haven’t seen any harm come to Islam itself as a result of cartoons. And don’t imagine that the murders were somehow divine retribution. That was the action of three angry, petulant and ultimately immature young men who decided on their own to react to an insult with deadly force. The same way a playground bully will use force to react to an insult.

I understand that people do not like to be offended. But we all have a choice when it comes to offensive material: we don’t have to look. No one has to look at pornography. No one has to read satire. You don’t have to read or watch The Last Temptation of Christ.

In a pluralistic, egalitarian society, which is what we are trying to build in the West, we respect each other’s right to practise any religion we choose, as long as we’re not harming anyone else. But your right to respect your religion does not trump my right to express my ideas. And if I feel the need to criticize a religious leader, that’s my right.

To my Muslim friends: if you are afraid of being offended, do not scroll any lower. I am going to republish some of the offensive cartoons from Charlie Hebdo. Not gratuitously, not just to make fun of a revered man, but as part of a question I want candid answers to.

Are you offended by this?

Personally, I think this is funny, riffing on a scene from a Brigitte Bardot film. I think it’s important to poke fun at revered figures, because it allows us to question our leaders, to hold them to account, and to question our own assumptions. We need to do this every so often, so we can make certain we are not being hypocrites.

And really, we are seeing a man’s bare ass. How does that hurt anyone? Even if it’s not beautiful, it’s not harmful. We’ve all seen someone’s bare ass at some point in our lives, and we’re none the worse for it.

How about this one?

It’s a reference to the film “Intouchables,” about a disabled, rich white man who hires a poor black man to care for him. The dialog bubble means “We must not be mocked.” Is it funny? Does it offend you? Tell me in the Comments section.

And what about this one? 

What do you think?

Even if it is disrespectful, Charlie Hebdo did not harm anyone or anything. And here’s a suggestion to those who did feel offended and disrespected: consisder satire like Charlie Hebdo’s like a vaccination. If you can deal with the disrespect and come up with a response—one that does not involve violence or repression—maybe your faith will be stronger for it.

Tilting against the biggest books of all time: the Bible and Quran

I'm taking a huge chance here.

 Last week, the news media were full of the story about York University in Toronto accommodating a male student’s request not to be put in a study group with women, on religious grounds.

The identity and specific religion of the student are protected under Canada’s privacy laws. Whatever religion it is, this case points to a long-standing problem.

I fully support freedom of religion, and will defend everyone’s right to believe and practice whatever they like, as long as it is not hurting anyone else nor infringing on any else’s rights. But it’s time we all stopped using religion or philosophy to excuse inexcusable behaviour and to justify unjustifiable ideas.

That’s right. I’m telling the world that I do not believe that you can use the Bible, the Quran, Mao’s little red book, the Communist Manifesto or any other book to defend your ideas. I just don’t accept the argument “because God says so.”

You can’t prove that, and the fact that you have a book that’s called “God’s words” does not constitute proof. I can write a book called “God’s Words, too.”

 

See?

The devil is in the details

In September, 2013, sociology professor J. Paul Grayson assigned a mandatory group assignment that required students to work together in person. One student, who was taking the course online, asked Dr. Grayson to exempt him because his religious beliefs forbade him from meeting in public with a group of women.

Dr. Grayson refused the request, and after discussion, the student agreed to participate in the assignment and completed it. However, the university administration ordered Dr. Grayson to accommodate the request.

To his credit, Dr. Grayson refused the administration’s order to accommodate this religious request. “What if I said my religion frowns upon my interacting with blacks?” he wrote. This accommodate would set a precedent, he said, and make him an “accessory to sexism.”

The public reaction was telling and uplifting. I could not find a single person or opinion in the media that supported the religious accommodation. And rightfully so.

(The Dean of Arts at York University defended his action partly because the student asked to be able to complete the assignment in another way, and another online student who was situated outside the country was allowed another way to do the work.)

The media reaction

Every political leader in the country decried the university’s accommodation order. Every opinion speaker and writer I heard or read likewise sided with the professor. Every online comment also supported the professor, and pointed out that this type of religious accommodation damages women’s sexual equality rights, hard-won over the last century.

This is an example where the right of freedom to practice your religion conflicts with gender equality rights. Many Canadian schools provide prayer rooms, segregated by gender, as part of their “religious accommodation.” Canadian institutions — funded by Canadian taxpayers — accommodate religious practices that defy the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — part of the law that supposedly governs those institutions.

Religious versus human rights

I repeat, I support your right to believe and practice any religion you like. But I do not support anyone’s attempt to infringe on anyone else’s human rights. And equality of women and men is one of the most important.

I thought it was telling that CBC radio’s program, The Current, introduced this story with a clip of televangelist Pat Robertson saying that according to the Bible, men and women are not equal.

According to this logic, religion justifies unequal treatment and unequal rights between the sexes. It says so in the Bible.

I’m not trying to criticize any particular religion here, nor am I trying to open a general debate about crime and punishment. All I want to do is to point out the hypocrisy of the argument that goes: “I must do this/I cannot do that because the Bible/Quran/whatever other text I hold out as justification for every ridiculous idea that comes out of my mouth, says so.”

Crazy idea icon by mehagopijiji.
Licenced under Creative Commons.

Otherwise rational people are afraid to criticize religious beliefs and practices because they fear being branded as intolerant, racist, or xenophobic. Well, I’m none of those things, but I will say this: I don’t accept the “It’s God’s will” argument, because the people who use it don’t accept it, either.

Nobody actually follows the entire Bible, even though they say they do. Not even Pat Robertson. How many people sacrifice cattle to God? Does Pat Robertson? Yet Leviticus, the Biblical book that instructs believers in how to live every minute of their lives, tells readers to sacrifice bulls just about every day.

Have you ever seen a televangelist making that kind of sacrifice, or indeed, any kind of sacrifice of his own property?

Do religious leaders in Canada promote the death penalty for adultery? How many religious people think that’s okay? Should Canada accommodate religious sects that want to put adulterers to death?

From Leviticus, Chapter 20. Source: ReadBibleOnline.net

The Bible also tells believers to put homosexuals to death. I’m pretty sure that Canadian law does not accommodate this practice.

The Quran tells a husband to beat his wife — mildly, yes, but definitely to use force — if she defies his authority. Would Canadian law accommodate this? Would US law? I hope not.

No one follows any scriptures absolutely. No one in Canada can put adulterers or homosexuals to death. If they do, the law will punish them.

The point is that even the most religious choose among obligations to follow, adhering to some and ignoring others. It’s a human decision.

Not a divine one.

Basing all your life actions on an ancient book is an unsupportable idea. Every religious person chooses the scriptures he or she will follow, because no one follows all of them. No one can.

I won’t argue whether the Bible and Quran were divinely inspired, because I cannot change anyone’s belief on that point in a blog. But how about if I add this: God told me to write this post.

Prove to me that He (or She, or Whatever) did not.

Québec’s proposed Charter of Values

Often, written words cause a major stir. The latest one worth a look is the Parti Québecois’ proposed Charter of Quebec Values.

The Quebec government has made a cursory attempt at providing the document in English and in French, but key parts, such as the introduction and the Message from the Ministre responsable des Institutions démocratiques et de la Participation citoyenne (Minister responsible for democratic institutions and citizenship), Bernard Drainville, are available only in French.

The Charter is not a basic statement of the society’s values; it’s a response to the growing and vocal Muslim community in Quebec. It begins with

“Les orientations proposées par le gouvernement ont pour objectif de poursuivre la démarche de séparation des religions et de l’État...”

“The objective of the ideas proposed by the government is the pursuit of the separation of religion and the State...”

Only in section 4 does the document get to what the proposed values are, and those are relatively brief: equality of women and men; and shared historical inheritance. These are the “common values” that the government says that Quebec’s people share.

Not much, really. Vague. Incomplete.

The proposed charter

The Charter proposal begins with a statement of concern:

Since 2006, a number of high-profile religious accommodation cases have given rise to a profound discomfort in Quebec. To maintain social peace and promote harmony, we must prevent tensions from growing.

Clear rules on religious accommodations will contribute to integration and social cohesion. They will benefit all Quebecers, including newcomers. We will be best served by a state that treats everyone the same.

I agree. Hey, if the state is obliged to treat everyone the same, why can’t people put up signs in English as big as in French?

I have to ask: why this, now? Quebec has been a remarkably open, if not completely tolerant society for decades. Montreal itself is almost as ethnically diverse as Toronto, the most ethnically diverse city in the world. Jews, Sikhs, Mennonites (and other religions, although I don’t know all that prescribe what people wear) and Muslims have been able wear clothes according to their religious convictions, without any problem.

This is not the first recent indication of the discomfort that some people, at least, in Quebec feel toward the growing Muslim community. A few years ago, the town of Hérouxville tried to ban Shariah law, and in 2005, the Quebec Assembly voted unanimously against allowing Sharia law in civil cases.

And who can forget the Quebec government’s unfortunate guide for immigrants that advised against honour killing and cooking of smelly foods?

I think there are two forces at work:

First, the dominant French-Canadian, French-speaking, white and nominally Catholic culture in Quebec has faded, replaced not only by the secular French-speaking and arguably slightly multi-ethnic culture that the government insists exists, but a more diverse culture. The “Quebecois” identity envisioned by the separatists from the 60s through the 80s (let’s face it, separatism stopped being cool by 1970), the identity supposedly protected by Bill 101, has mostly faded, especially in Montreal.

The other force is the resurgence of religion in daily life, especially among Muslims. The younger generation of Muslims is more observant of the outward aspects of their religion, including clothing, than before. This coupled with their increasing numbers means that Quebecers, and all Canadians, see more women and girls in obvious religious garb.

Backlash

Half of Quebec, including intellectuals, people of just about every religion represented in the province, and half of the separatists oppose the proposal.

What were they thinking?

That’s to be expected. What’s surprising is that the proponents of the Charter seemed totally umprepared for the backlash, as if they can’t understand why, for example, a Jewish prosecutor object if he would no longer be allowed to wear a yarmulke if he wanted to in court; or why a Sikh doctor should protest if he were disallowed from wearing a turban during hospital rounds or consultations in a CLSC clinic.

Whom are they hurting? Even the most strident believer in the PQ cannot believe that the fact that a woman wears a scarf on her head would cause someone else to change religions. “Oh, that is SUCH a nice scarf, I want one! I’ll even change religions so that I can wear it!”

No, the separatists cannot believe that.

I understand the other arguments: that Quebec is trying to protect its culture. But culture is a living thing, and that means it changes all the time. If its outward form is different from what political leaders remember from their childhood, they’ll just have to suck it up. Enforcing cultural norms has never worked and it isn’t going to start working now.

Is the charter fair?

To be frank, the proposed charter is discriminatory. It developed in response to a particular group, and affects religious minorities unfairly. If it doesn’t hurt anyone else, why shouldn’t a woman wear a scarf on her head? In a free society like Canada, she should have that right as an equal citizen. Yes, she should also be protected against abuse from anyone if she decides not to wear the scarf, too.

Just to be clear, I don't think that anyone should be allowed to wear clothing that puts themselves or anyone else in danger. That's why I don't think that girls should wear a hijab on the soccer pitch or while doing any other sport - because there is a danger of choking. Similarly, no one should be allowed onto a construction site without a hard-hat. I don't care what your religion says about that.

It's amazing that this piece of cloth can cause so much trouble.

And to be frank, I also think that the hijab in particular is also discriminatory. I’m not an expert on Islam, but from what I understand, the hijab itself is not a requirement of Islam. It’s something that some people choose to wear, and there are plenty of upstanding Muslim women in the world who choose not to wear it.

And let’s remember that some Muslim women feel pressured, or are absolutely pressured, to cover their heads. Not following the dictates of their culture and their families has caused the deaths of many Muslim women around the world, including in Canada. Don’t forget the murders of Geeti, Sahar and Zeinab Shafia’s and Rona Amir Mohammad, in the name of “honour.” No, it wasn’t because they didn’t wear hijabs, or not only because of that, but it is part of the same pattern of enforcing culture.

Isn’t that what the PQ is trying to do?

I think that people should be allowed to wear such a scarf. Hell, if I wanted to wear one, I don’t think that anyone should prevent me from doing so. Of course, I expect to be criticized, to be thought of as crazy or at least of having very poor taste.

Speaking of bad taste... maybe
Richard Simmons should put
something on his head.

I have to admit, I think a religious prescription on clothing is backward. But it you feel it’s a mark of respect, by all means, do it. And no democratic government should prevent you from doing it.